DHARMENDRA CHOUHAN Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the case is called out, counsel for the appellant is absent.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that the mother of the original petitioner has expired on 11th October, 1986 and thereafter, application was preferred on 27th October, 1986 and thereafter, representation was preferred on 23rd April, 2012. Thereafter, Annexure 5 application was preferred by way of representation which was also rejected by the respondents and, hence, a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3774 of 2015 was preferred by this appellant for getting compassionate appointment. This writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 2nd February, 2016 and hence, the Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the respondents and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the mother of the appellant (original petitioner) has expired on 11th October, 1986 when she was serving with the respondents. Thereafter, it appears that after much delay, W.P.(S) No. 3774 of 2015 was preferred which was approximately after delay of three decades.